Allowed

Parunandi Mani v. Repco Home Finance Limited

DRT1 Sept 2025SA/148/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant's security application challenging the respondent's unauthorized physical possession of secured property. The Tribunal quashed the measures initiated by the respondent under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 via orders of the Lower Judicial Magistrate. The respondent was granted liberty to proceed afresh following due legal procedure.

What did the court decide?

The impugned measures initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the secured asset under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 pursuant to the orders of Ld. CJM, Warangal are hereby

Parunandi Mani versus Repco Home Finance Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN'THE DEBTS RECOVERYT'RIBUNAL * 1 AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 1 ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER .2C.25

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

sA.No.14812024

¶4

Smt. Parunandi Mani, W/o P.Babu Christopher Aged 50 years, Occ:house wife, R/o Flar No.29, FI.No.33-6-508/4, Sri Sai Nagar, Thimmapur, Flanamkonda Mandal, Warangal l)ist.

¶5

... Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

REPCO home Finance Ltd., Office at D.No.1-7-871/1, 1st floor, Vinayaka Plaza, Opp. Warangal Public School, Hunter Road, Hanamkonda-506001.

¶8

Rep. by its Authorized officcr

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for Respondent

¶11

: Si V.Sethu Madhaua Rao : Sri M. Sajid^pasha

¶12

ORDEB

¶13

The Applicant filed the present Securitisation Application u/s. 17 of the securitization and Reconstruction of pinancial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (SARFAESI Act, 2OO2) challenging the action ofthe Respondent for taking physicat possession ofthe schedure property through Advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of I,d.CJM, W the same as illegat and void.

¶14

7ry4e{.€t,T!ide

¶15

'I'he avermcn ro{;,*48 r, ,::'&n brier, are that, the Appricanr availcd hcr ei"f^{Iw" ffi; ft,E ::; :;:':::" i: TH:::::}

¶16

mortgagc in w#

¶17

sAL48l24

¶18

medical expenditure, the Applicant could nclt pay some instalments. The Respondent issued possession notice dt.15.02.2o23 but the Respondent failed to follow Rule s(1)&(2) of security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2oo2 in taking possessio.r' of the schedule propert5r. Further, the Respondent has not followed the contemplated procedure in proceeding for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2. Hence the SA.

¶19

¶20

Sri M.Sajid Pasha, Ld.advocate, though filed vakalat for Respondent, called absent and there was no representation even after giving several opportunities and hence the Respondent,s right of filing Reply was forfeited.

¶21

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant.

¶22

¶23

Now the points that arise for consideration is

¶24

i) whether the Applicant has established any ualict ground.s for setting aside the measures initiated by the Respond.ent for taking physicat possesslon of the sA schedule propertg through Ad.uocate commissioner pursuant to the ord"ers of Ld.cJM, warangal?

¶25

ii) To what relieft

¶26

Point No.(il

¶27

The Applicant filed the present SA challenging the proceedings initiated by the Respondent under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder for taking physical possession of the schedule property. But, the Respondent who invoked the SARFAESI proceedings ::":""..p1ffi.$itl",.I,failedtojustifytheiractionbyfiling Reply 1?.d:ert;t'q:,,;g;atss,g : paterial documents to prove that the n."poffei$ has stS$try follo'rg[,dfun" provisions of SARFAEST Act and Rulcs eeding against the secured asset. 'l'hc R h"o*"str1[fvi'h,sndent has not-6vin ny interest in contesting the matter

¶28

sA 748124

¶29

even after giving several opportunities and failed to file their Reply and material documents to disprove the allegations of the Applicant. In the absence ofany material evidence to show that the Respondent has duly complied with the mandated provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules, 2002 while proceeding against the secured asset for taking physical possession u/s 14 of the Act, I hold that the Applicant has made a case for quashing the measures initiated by the Respondent against the SA schedule property under the provisions ofthe SARFAESI Act and Rules thcrcundcr and as such, the SA is liable to be allowed.

¶30

Point No.lii):-

¶31

In the result, sA 148124 is allowed.

¶32

u. Accordingly, the impugned measures initiated by the Respondent^for taking physical possession of the secured asset under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 pursuant to the orders of Ld.CJM, Warangal in Crl.M.P.No. 15124 arc hcrcby quashed. However, the Respondent is at liberty to procecd afrcsh against thc SA scheduie property to recover their dues by duly following the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Rules thereunder.

¶33

The Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶34

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶35

S?cr",larg, tratLscribed b!1 her, coftected, signed and pronounced bg me lfus the l"r dag of Septe-nrbe,r, 2025).

¶36

sd/(G. GOPTCHANDI ,. PRBSIDITTG OFFICER

¶37

O9T.I,I,IYDERAtsAD.

Parunandi Mani v. Repco Home Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parunandi Mani v. Repco Home Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus Dvn Food Works Pvt. Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Peketi Raja Sekhar

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Srinika Slipper Manufacturers

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Kallepelli Mahesh

State Bank of India versus M/S. Arunima Chekka Ganuga Oils

Korutla Sujatha versus Telangana Grameena Bank